NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 275 -GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

I came across this revealing statement on page 247 of the Third Report (2001). paragraph 4.1.4. Chapter 4

"The atmospheric lifetime is truly a scale factor relating (i) constant emissions (Tg/yr) to a steady-state burden (Tg), or (ii) an emission pulse (Tg) to the time-integrated burden of that pulse (Tg-yr). The lifetime is often implicitly assumed to be constant, independent of the sources, and is likewise assumed to represent the decay time (e-fold) of a perturbation. These assumptions apply rigorously only for a gas whose local chemical lifetime is constant in space and time such as for the radioactive noble gas radon, whose lifetime is a fixed nuclear property. In such a case the mean atmospheric lifetime equals the local lifetime: the lifetime that relates global emissions to the global burden is exactly the decay time of a perturbation.

This general applicability of the atmospheric lifetime breaks down for greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants whose chemical losses vary in space and time. NOx, for instance, has a local lifetime of <1 d in the lower troposphere, but >5 d in the upper troposphere; and both times are less than the time required for vertical mixing of the troposphere. In this case emission of NOx into the upper troposphere will produce a larger atmospheric burden than the same emission into the lower troposphere. As a consequence the definition of the atmospheric lifetime of NOx is not unique and depends on the location (and season) of its emissions. The same is true for any gas whose local lifetime is variable and on average shorter than about 0.5 yr, the decay time of a north-south difference between hemispheres and one of the longer time scales for tropospheric mixing. The majority of greenhouse gases considered here have atmospheric lifetimes greater than 2 yr, much longer than tropospheric mixing times; and hence their lifetimes are not significantly altered by the location of sources within the troposphere. When lifetimes are reported for gases in Table 4.0, it is assumed that the gases are uniformly mixed throughout the troposphere. This assumption is unlikely for gases with lifetimes <1 yr, "and reported values must be viewed only as approximations." (My emphasis)

This shows why they are so concerned to fiddle the measured results of gas concentrtations to try and argue they are "well-mixed" and have no variability. So all results they don't like are suppressed as "noise", the many previous results, publicised by Beck, are suppressed, and measurements over land surfaces are forbidden. There is overwhelming evidence that none of the gases are "well-mixed", so all of the Global Warming figures are Phoney.

The Global Warming Potential of Methane used by the NZ Ministry of Environment at

Comments

There is a parallel to Charles Darwin among Insurance Surveyors in determining the proportion of risk between events that are unforeseen and those that may be likely to occur. Where a theory is not supported by the facts, then try a new theory.Clearly, the computer modeling that spawned the theories to launch the carbon tax remain unsupported by the facts. That climate change is indeed real with its cycles of naturally occurring extremes from one period in time to another has, to my knowledge and experiences, been selectively distorted to direct constant and repetitive attention to human causes. A psychological ploy of Goebbels ( The Nuremberg Files, 1934)The lie is evident as this reply is being written. Huge bushfires around the Alice and 1000 sq miles of the inaccessible ponderosa pines aflame in Arizona are spewing thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every hour. The remains of Doug Mawson's snow tractor in Antarctica, last seen as the ice cover receded in 1931 and again in 2004-5 is again iced out of sight. It is fact, the cold wind shear from the South these past weeks has delayed budburst on my fraxinus aurea by one month. Will computer modeling tell me when for budburst in the future?

Popular Posts

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans, therefore alarmism and all the money spent on it has no basis. Anthony Cox This is a key issue: whether humans are responsible for all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If they are not then it does not matter if alarmists believe that CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, which it is not because the increase is natural. Human CO2 is a very small % of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, The % of human CO2 going into the atmosphere is shown by Figure 7.3, AR4, 3.67% (218.2 GT divided by 8 GT): Figure 7.3 AR4: Of the total CO2 emissions 98.5% are reabsorbed: EIA, Table 3 2004: The reabsorption of CO2 does not distinguish between human and natural CO2, so the human contribution to the increase is 3.67% of 1.5%. This amount, the human contribution has not changed in 150 years. The human contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is called the airborne fraction. The AF has not changed: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/k…

Opinion by Anthony Cox
I wrote before about the ABC’s bias and the real
cost of the ABC to the Australian community. Since then the Abbott
government has announced reasonable budget cuts but the ABC has sunk further
into its betrayal of its Charter and of the Australian community.
In a recent poll about the farcical China/US deal about
emissions the ABC’s The Drum initially showed this result: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result? No 55% Yes 44% Unsure 1%

15205 votes counted
Given the ABC’s Left/Green readership a remarkable result.
However shortly the result
was changed to this: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change
policies as a result?Yes 76% No 23% Unsure 1% 6001
votes counted
How could you trust an organisation which lies like that and
distorts public …